Date   

Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Tom Jones III <tomtherailnut@...>
 

And now I understand your desires. Thank you.

My focus was more on simulation of scale momentum of models, yours is the
faithful creation of models. Sadly, in my opinion, the twain don't meet
here.

Tom Jones

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Scale Weights - Doubt It


Tom,

Actually to me the answer is quite simple, (but then I'm kinda weird some
say), because of the general context's of the STMFC's stated purpose and the
MANY topics discussed in this group. Everything possible seems to be
considered for discussion, from the scale size of rivet-heads, to exact
underframes, exact brake-wheels, exact metal-thickness, exact car-color &
weathering, ad infinitum!! Scale-weight is just, in fact, another part of
the total scale-picture!

But, James Eckman just posted a link to the page, "Railway Engineering",
that very interestingly covers the scale-weight & car-weighting issue, by
Steve Hatch, questions 9 & 10. As per Hatch's hypothesis, weight doesn't,
almost, matter at all, and states why. His theories actually argue in favor
of why NOT use actual scale-weight in our cars? Therefore, the case for
actually attaining the scale-weight of a model, to me, should become an
additional function in the total scale-building formula, as well as the
question, "What color would be the under-carriage of a NYC freight-car
traveling through Phoenix, Arizona in August of 1947."

Paul Hillman


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

Tom,

Actually to me the answer is quite simple, (but then I'm kinda weird some say), because of the general context's of the STMFC's stated purpose and the MANY topics discussed in this group. Everything possible seems to be considered for discussion, from the scale size of rivet-heads, to exact underframes, exact brake-wheels, exact metal-thickness, exact car-color & weathering, ad infinitum!! Scale-weight is just, in fact, another part of the total scale-picture!

But, James Eckman just posted a link to the page, "Railway Engineering", that very interestingly covers the scale-weight & car-weighting issue, by Steve Hatch, questions 9 & 10. As per Hatch's hypothesis, weight doesn't, almost, matter at all, and states why. His theories actually argue in favor of why NOT use actual scale-weight in our cars? Therefore, the case for actually attaining the scale-weight of a model, to me, should become an additional function in the total scale-building formula, as well as the question, "What color would be the under-carriage of a NYC freight-car traveling through Phoenix, Arizona in August of 1947."

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Jones III<mailto:tomtherailnut@cox.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Scale Weights - Doubt It


Paul:

My only question is: "Why scale WEIGHT?" What do you achieve by having exact
scale weight, vs. weight that makes the car act and appear to have the same
mass as the prototype would under the same circumstances? I am not
challenging you, I am simply trying to figure out what it is you wish to
achieve.

Tom Jones III


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

Mike,

That WOULD be an interesting little "detail" to put on a freight-car. I think I'll try that just for fun.

Once somebody suggested attaching some kind of device to a rail, to make it pull down as the wheels pass over, from the weight, just like we often see on the prototype. I'm gonna try that too, without having to add 20 lbs. of weight to the car.

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock<mailto:brockm@brevard.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It


Paul Hillman writes:


> This is the same thing that the prototype has had to deal with. Now we're
> getting down to the "nitty-gritty" of the TRUE prototyping of our model
> railroad cars,..... theory of parts & materials in action. Total dynamics!

Ah, well. Mebbie so. However, if you really want to simulate total dynamics,
flatten a metal wheel. Kind of interesting. The thing does clank
along...somewhat prototypically.

Mike Brock


Good running model freight cars

James Eckman
 

Steve Hatch has an alternative view to the NMRA weighting standards, details here:

http://www.railwayeng.com/rrhints.htm

One group I'm a member of has a portable layout with extreme curves and grades in places, to much weight in a car means it can't go up the hill! Also if the weights too high, it will tip.

For my flatlander layout I don't worry about it because I have very broad curves and no grades. If your building up models, I would recommend some form of three point suspension on your cars.

Jim Eckman


Re: Freight car colors

Tom Jones III <tomtherailnut@...>
 

I stand corrected! Thank you! The mystery now deepens - why both appear
glossy for a while, at least. Having read some of the formulas, most relied
upon linseed oil or hemp oil as binder/carriers. Both tend to dull pretty
quickly, and neither really develop much gloss to begin with. Again, I
assume it is because new BCR or stencil white have quite a bit of oil to
evaporate away, rather than an attempt to add intentional gloss to the cars.
Your thoughts?

Tom Jones

----- Original Message -----

Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car colors


I wonder if the apparent gloss of BCR is primarily due to excess
linseed oil . . . (snipped stupidity)
Nope. The "white stencil paste" widely used in the steam era was
formulated just like other car paints, same ingredients but mixed in
different proportions to make it stiff to be applied with a stencil
brush. In times after 1960, it may well be true that enamels were used,
but that's not for this list.


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Tom Jones III <tomtherailnut@...>
 

Paul:

My only question is: "Why scale WEIGHT?" What do you achieve by having exact
scale weight, vs. weight that makes the car act and appear to have the same
mass as the prototype would under the same circumstances? I am not
challenging you, I am simply trying to figure out what it is you wish to
achieve.

Tom Jones III

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Scale Weights - Doubt It


"The concept of "Scale Weight" really is a dead end, in my opinion."
****************************************************************************
****
Response:

Well not to me!!


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Paul Hillman writes:


This is the same thing that the prototype has had to deal with. Now we're getting down to the "nitty-gritty" of the TRUE prototyping of our model railroad cars,..... theory of parts & materials in action. Total dynamics!
Ah, well. Mebbie so. However, if you really want to simulate total dynamics, flatten a metal wheel. Kind of interesting. The thing does clank along...somewhat prototypically.

Mike Brock


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

This is the same thing that the prototype has had to deal with. Now we're getting down to the "nitty-gritty" of the TRUE prototyping of our model railroad cars,..... theory of parts & materials in action. Total dynamics!

Weren't archbar trucks downgraded, and friction-journals, etc., for similar reasons, et al?

What causes prototype "hot-boxes"? They'd figure it out, then change the materials & methods!! These things were all caused by loadings, empty or loaded. The same as in our models.

Long Live Model-Railroading!!

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor<mailto:timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It



NMRA guidelines notwithstanding, I have run cars of various
weights on several layouts and my experiences vary from car
to car. Some light cars run fine, some don't. Same for heavy
cars. The heavier the car, the more force on the "journal"
of the axle -- I have seen many plastic needlepoint axles
literally worn down to a nub because of excess car weight.
An HO sprung truck's sideframes will bow outwards under too
much weight, changing the position of the axle end in the
sideframe bearing and greatly increasing friction and wear.
None of this has anything to do with prototype axle loads.

Tim O'Connor






Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Freight Car Movements Across the United States c.1910

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Maybe, Art, but you probably managed to alienate the best source of information likely to be able to
answer . . .uh . . .whatever your question was.

You owe the man an apology.

SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of montydogsdad2
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 4:25 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight Car Movements Across the United
States c.1910

Yeah, sure he really contributed a lot with the garbage he
was putting out. Thanx for piling on.

Art Griffin




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:
Art Griffin wrote:
I made the observation that the Maine Central car was a long way
from home. I did not ask a question. It goes without comment
that
anyone else can make a comment about the era if they so choose.
If
you have nothing to contribute, why all this hostility? I
personally
believe your comments are insulting and I *DO NOT * have to
formulate an opinion or a theory or even ask for one. Are you now
the conscience of this group? This is bordering on a flame And I
hope Mike Reads this. Because you are really out of line.
Talk about hostility!! Sorry, Art, I didn't read that into
Gilbert's comments at all. Tim has provided barrels of information
for
many, many questions on this list, and as I read his remarks, he
was
trying to find out what your question was so he could try to
answer it.
Insulting? Hello!?! If I were Mike I'd reprimand YOU.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@s...
Publishers of books on railroad history



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite
Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9MtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------
------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links






Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Tim O'Connor
 

NMRA guidelines notwithstanding, I have run cars of various
weights on several layouts and my experiences vary from car
to car. Some light cars run fine, some don't. Same for heavy
cars. The heavier the car, the more force on the "journal"
of the axle -- I have seen many plastic needlepoint axles
literally worn down to a nub because of excess car weight.
An HO sprung truck's sideframes will bow outwards under too
much weight, changing the position of the axle end in the
sideframe bearing and greatly increasing friction and wear.
None of this has anything to do with prototype axle loads.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight Car Movements Across the United States c.1910

Tim O'Connor
 

Yeah, sure he really contributed a lot with the garbage
he was putting out. Thanx for piling on.
Art Griffin
Art,

If it makes you feel any better, I posted a message quite a
while back about a Bangor & Aroostook box car spotted at a
small grain elevator somewhere in Nebraska... So such things
happened not just in 1910, but throughout the "steam era".
I accepted your note as an observation or "witness to fact"
and nothing else. Perfectly in line with this list.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

Tim Gilbert wrote;

"What is the prototypical weight for a loaded car? Consider the following
tons per carload for sundry commodities in 1956" :

Wheat 54.52 tons per carload
Cotton in Bales 19.92 tons per carload
Oranges & Grapefruit 21.33 tons per carload
Lettuce 12.81 tons per carload
Potatoes Other Than Sweet 18.99 tons per carload

etc., etc.
*********************************************************************************
Tim,

My initial analysis was based solely upon MAXIMUM car gross weight. It doesn't matter what the load was. It could be lead or feathers.

The statement might better be worded as saying, " the NMRA weights are not inconsistent with the "MAXIMUM WEIGHT" of a loaded car."


Paul Hillman


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Paul Hillman wrote:

Tony Thompson wrote;

"As we saw a few days ago, the NMRA weights are not inconsistent with a loaded car."
*****************************************************************************
That's my whole point. For the purpose of getting good model operation, the NMRA did extensive research into determining their recommended weights. Out of shear coincidence ( ? ) their figures are consistent with loaded car-weights?

This merely proves the issue that, in order to make my cars run well, they are NOT 10 times scale-weight, but very close to prototype-weight for loaded cars.
Paul,

What is the prototypical weight for a loaded car? Consider the following tons per carload for sundry commodities in 1956:

Wheat 54.52 tons per carload
Cotton in Bales 19.92 tons per carload
Oranges & Grapefruit 21.33 tons per carload
Lettuce 12.81 tons per carload
Potatoes Other Than Sweet 18.99 tons per carload
Cattle & Calves 10.87 tons per carload
Fresh Meat 12.51 tons per carload
Anthracite Coal 57.06 tons per carload
Bituminous Coal 59.96 tons per carload
Iron Ore 65.32 tons per carload
Lumber Shingles & Lath 43.95 tons per carload
Pulpwood 31.41 tons per carload
Gasoline 29.50 tons per carload
Fertilizers 45.61 tons per carload
Manufactured Iron & Steel 39.90 tons per carload
Iron & Steel Pipe & Fittings 37.11 tons per carload
Passenger Automobiles 7.28 tons per carload
Motor Vehicle Parts 17.43 tons per carload
Cement, Natural & Portland 54.61 tons per carload
Lime 42.79 tons per carload
Woodpulp 20.81 tons per carload
Newsprint 26.61 tons per carload
Refrigerators, Freezing Apparatus & Parts 10.19 tons per carload
Furniture 8.51 tons per carload
Liquors, Malt 29.60 tons per carload
Sugar 41.46 tons per carload
Food Products in Cans or Packages Not Frozen 26.18 tons per carload
Feed, Animal or Poultry 26.44 tons per carload
Scrap Iron & Steel 46.06 tons per carload
Car Forwarder Traffic 10.69 tons per carload

I can only conclude that the weight of a prototypical car when loaded varied considerably even among the averages - for boxcars, for instance, from 8.51 tons per carload for Furniture to 54.52 tons per carload for Wheat.

Tim Gilbert


UNION PACIFIC TANK CARS OFF-LINE

gary laakso
 

I received a copy of the new book, Great Northern Empire Builder, today and on page 88 there is a picture of a circa 1964 Empire Builder arriving in Wenatchee, WA. One track over is a Union Pacific 40 foot tank car 69578.

I always thought that company service oil cars stayed on home rails, but hey I worked for ESPEE and we believed in lots of things....


gary laakso
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

Tony Thompson wrote;

"As we saw a few days ago, the NMRA weights are not inconsistent with a loaded car."
*****************************************************************************
That's my whole point. For the purpose of getting good model operation, the NMRA did extensive research into determining their recommended weights. Out of shear coincidence ( ? ) their figures are consistent with loaded car-weights?

This merely proves the issue that, in order to make my cars run well, they are NOT 10 times scale-weight, but very close to prototype-weight for loaded cars. If the weight of a loaded car is what is needed to make trains run right, then fine and so be it!!, because, we do not actually load and unload our cars, except for flats, gons & hoppers, unless one has Lionel or other, magnetic cow-loaders, etc.

OK!!! So the final answer/statement to "scale-weights" can be, as I HAVE been asked before;

Question: "How much does a real car weigh? Aren't these models really light compared to the real thing?"

Answer: "No, they're actually very close to the scale-weight of a loaded railroad car. We figure these weights from the weight of a loaded-car even-though not all cars are actually loaded on a train. But, it gives us the best operation and is a compromise.
********************************************************************************

Then, Tom Jones III wrote:

"The concept of "Scale Weight" really is a dead end, in my opinion."
********************************************************************************
Response:

Well not to me!!

OK, I've heard enough about scale-weights. I got my answers. Thanks!!

Paul Hillman


Re: Scale Weights - Doubt It

Paul Hillman
 

Tom Jones wrote;

"It would be great fun to have a car that actually resisted the
pulling forces based upon its supposed weight, and that likewise
would demonstrate momentum once rolling."
*****************************************************************
Response;

I believe John Allen did that "way-back-when", when he built a boxcar with a flywheel in it attached to the wheels for just such a momentum effect. I guess he was trying to capture the scale-weight affect. He must have been thinking about it too.

Paul Hillman


Re: Freight Car Movements Across the United States c.1910

montydogsdad2 <artgriffindecals@...>
 

Yeah, sure he really contributed a lot with the garbage he was
putting out. Thanx for piling on.

Art Griffin




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:
Art Griffin wrote:
I made the observation that the Maine Central car was a long way
from home. I did not ask a question. It goes without comment
that
anyone else can make a comment about the era if they so choose.
If
you have nothing to contribute, why all this hostility? I
personally
believe your comments are insulting and I *DO NOT * have to
formulate an opinion or a theory or even ask for one. Are you now
the conscience of this group? This is bordering on a flame And I
hope Mike Reads this. Because you are really out of line.
Talk about hostility!! Sorry, Art, I didn't read that into
Gilbert's comments at all. Tim has provided barrels of information
for
many, many questions on this list, and as I read his remarks, he
was
trying to find out what your question was so he could try to
answer it.
Insulting? Hello!?! If I were Mike I'd reprimand YOU.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@s...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car colors

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tom Jones III wrote:
I wonder if the apparent gloss of BCR is primarily due to excess linseed oil
filming and evaporating from the surface, rather than from an intentional
gloss, such as adding varnishes would have helped achieve. I sincerely don't
have much of an idea. On the other hand, most lettering is done with
enamels . . .
Nope. The "white stencil paste" widely used in the steam era was formulated just like other car paints, same ingredients but mixed in different proportions to make it stiff to be applied with a stencil brush. In times after 1960, it may well be true that enamels were used, but that's not for this list.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight Car Movements Across the United States c.1910

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Art Griffin wrote:
I made the observation that the Maine Central car was a long way
from home. I did not ask a question. It goes without comment that
anyone else can make a comment about the era if they so choose. If
you have nothing to contribute, why all this hostility? I personally
believe your comments are insulting and I *DO NOT * have to
formulate an opinion or a theory or even ask for one. Are you now
the conscience of this group? This is bordering on a flame And I
hope Mike Reads this. Because you are really out of line.
Talk about hostility!! Sorry, Art, I didn't read that into Gilbert's comments at all. Tim has provided barrels of information for many, many questions on this list, and as I read his remarks, he was trying to find out what your question was so he could try to answer it. Insulting? Hello!?! If I were Mike I'd reprimand YOU.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car colors

Tom Jones III <tomtherailnut@...>
 

I wonder if the apparent gloss of BCR is primarily due to excess linseed oil
filming and evaporating from the surface, rather than from an intentional
gloss, such as adding varnishes would have helped achieve. I sincerely don't
have much of an idea. On the other hand, most lettering is done with
enamels, which usually have a greater amount of varnishes in their
formulation for ease of handling and longevity. Additionally, the mercury,
lead, and zinc used as pigments in white paints (as are often found in the
lettering) tend to oxidize white, whereas the oxides of the weathering BCR
is rust, which often becomes darker, and is quite rough (well, relatively,
considering the size particle we are speaking of in paint pigment), picking
up lots of dirt.

Tom Jones

----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car colors


>
Ah, but remember that BCR was glossy when new; many photos show
that.

140801 - 140820 of 185219